Gomez, last night - you were unhinged. You were like some desperate, howling demon. You frightened me. - Do it again!

Much of the discussion among progressives as of late has been centered around the possibility of overkill with investigations of the Bush Administration should the Democrats retake one or both houses of congress. The theme running through this conversation is Democrats are so frustrated at the constant lies and transgressions of this President that, once they have the institutional levers of oversight under their control, they risk the possibility of going completely apeshit to the degree they dilute the possibility of actual oversight. For this reason Democrats should limit the investigations to one or two big-ticket items. Digby comes with a list of three items to investigate.

I agree with Matt that the Democrats need to be smart about how they go about investigating the Bush administration and should concentrate on the key areas that best illustrate their massive failure. I also agree that war profiteering is an overlooked subject that focuses on the corrupt crony capitalism that has fueled this administration from day one. (Jane was on this a year ago.) It's long past time people started asking where in the hell all that money went.

I would suggest that the other two issues that are ripe for investigations, and which would capture the worst of the egregious actions of the Bush administration, are presidential abuse of power and the manipulation of intelligence and strategic errors of Iraq. Those are the areas in which it is important to demand accountability from the administration and demonstrate to the American people that mature, responsible leadership will not allow such behavior to go unpunished.

Putting aside the HUGE cart-before-the-horse element of this conversation I think there's another thing missing here: it's built on the assumption that the Democrats have effectively assumed opposition party status and are itching for a fight.

I don't doubt for a second that if the Democrats were to win Congress (an enormous, colossal, gargantuan "if") there would be investigations of the administration. The difference will be in that these investigations will be institutional rather than partisan. Democratic leaders will focus on issues in which the lines of the traditional balance of powers between the coequal branches of government have been redrawn these last few years. The hearings will focus on the loss of institutional power by congress itself. In short: they will once again miss the forest for the trees.

The administration through Alberto Gonzalez's Unitary Executive theory has asserted unchecked power on matters of policy ranging from torture of prisoners, secrecy, ability to interpret statute covering the Executive branch and even the ability to declare war above and beyond congressional authorizations for the use of force (themselves probably unconstitutional.) Efforts by congressional Democrats in a majority to reign in the administration on all of these issues would be pointless if it didn't address the philosophy behind their assertion of power in the first place. It's not enough to say "Congress matters!" The extraconstitutional philosophy that led to this radical and dangerous rogue presidency needs to be exposed and exercised from the body politic. Congressional Democrats just don't have it in themselves to do this.

We know this because even while in the minority for twelve years, even while dealing with an unprecedented level of corruption by majority Republicans, even while being neutered to the point of political impotence and treated like dogs, congressional Democrats continue to show deference to their collegues across the aisle.

Take Jay Rockefeller for example. As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee he has continued to let himself get pushed around by Chairman Roberts and done nothing about it. Yesterday it was reported that Roberts was going to kick the can of Phase Two of the Iraq war intelligence down the road until after the election and it appears Rockefeller is okay with that. His officed announced he wouldn't have objections to postponing the postponement of the postponement of the investigation that they had already postponed on numerous occasions. He then rolled over on his back and begged Roberts to scratch his belly.

The point being it's hard to imagine a situation where CHAIRMAN Rockefeller would act differently in defference to a request by then ranking minority leader Roberts request to postpone. Out of respect for the instititution, deference to his collegues, etc. Rockefeller would probably postpone the investigation rather than ignore the request. These guys don't have the fire in their belly no matter how much the grassroots has tried to beg and cajole them into realizing these are different times and you can't show deference to radical maniacs who clearly want to eliminate you and everything you stand for and the country in the process.

Meek and mealy-mouthed Democratic Senators and Congressmen aren't going to suddenly grow a spine once they take the majority. In the inverse Republican Senators and Congressman won't suddenly understand the importance of comity and consensus once they're back in the minority. All of us will be better off once we come to terms with that.

These go to eleven.

Josh Bolten's five point plan to restore Bush's presidency:

1. Jackboots - If guns and badges play to the base then jackboots, lines of tens of thousands of soldiers goosestepping in precision and a return to the halicon days of spying on our friends and neighbors will make the President even MORE popular.

2. Make Thurston and Lovey Howell Happy - It's not necessary to fix the economy so that all Americans are doing well as long as you keep the millionaires that talk about the economy happy when they're on the Week on Wall Street then everything's peachy.

3. Magic Tricks - The problem with Scott McClellan as Press Secretary is that he was really dry and not all that entertaining. That's why it's important to hire Tony Snow who plays the saxaphone and has a sense of humor. He'll live by the credo to "Always keep 'em laughing."

"Yes, we may be building pyramids out of naked prisoners at Gitmo but watch me juggle these three oranges."

4. B&B (Brag & Bloviate) - Sure there's not a lot to brag about but make something up anyway and brag about that. "Under the Bush Presidency the average score of a round of golf on courses in the continental United States have dropped by four strokes. We have President Bush's firm and decisive leadership to thank for this."

5. Operation Flying Codpiece II - Blowing stuff up always plays in Peoria and their are plenty of Middle East countries left to bomb. The last war's "Mission Accomplished" moment didn't seem to last long so this time, when it comes to protecting (and projecting) the Presidential Package this time we don't fool around - - -

We're going to pump YOU up!

As someone who commutes quite a ways to work the subject of gas prices has been something very much on my mind. This weekend I paid about $6.00 more than the week before to fill up my tank. I think that's outrageous. I can't see how the consumer's pain at the pump won't translate into Republican's pain at the ballot box come November. But then I'm not a paid internet columnist like MSNBC's Elizabeth Wilner.

Having never been exposed to MSNBC's First Read I can't really speak to any bias on her part other than what I read in her piece on the politics of gas prices, but that seems to be more than enough to see that she has an axe to grind.

The gas war has begun

President Bush and members of Congress are still making their way back to Washington, but the war over who's to blame for skyrocketing gas prices is already simmering and is expected to reach full-boil status by tomorrow. There's little Bush can do about current high gas prices -- and if Democrats were running part of the government, they would find their hands similarly tied. But they're doing what they can to encourage voters to blame the majority party, and they are increasingly focusing their attacks on Bush's energy policy, the drafting of which, they remind everyone, energy companies were invited to participate in. Republican lawmakers are doing their best to deflect those efforts by taking up the cause of alleged price-gouging themselves and, now, by firing back at Democrats directly.

There is little Bush can do? Come again?

Why not tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and alleviate some of the pressure on supply?

Better yet- why doesn't Bush just get oil company executives on the phone and lay down the law threatening them with a justice department review of their business practices up to, and including, price gouging?

Why not open major diplomatic front on Iran instead of strutting and crowing to alleviate fears in the energy markets?

The questions are obviously rhetorical but the point is Bush's hands are hardly tied when it comes to gas prices.

Wilner then conveniently leaves out the accusations from actual Democrats in her piece about accusations from Democrats but does do a whole paragraph on the Republican response:

The Republican Senate campaign committee issued a detailed release accusing Democrats of trying to change the subject away from a strong US economy by focusing on gas prices. "These are the same Democrats who accomplished nothing in terms of an energy policy during eight years with President Clinton at the helm... These are also the same Democrats who obstructed a bi-partisan comprehensive energy bill for four years in Congress," the release snipes. A Senate GOP aide advises, "We expect Democrats to blame us as all summer... We expect there to be hearings, Democratic calls for 'windfall' taxes on oil company profits, tapping the strategic petroleum reserve, claims of price gouging by the oil companies, VP Cheney’s ties to the oil industry, and other nonsensical theories."

If the Democrats wanted to subscribe to sensical rather than nonsensical theories they'd join Republicans in blaming the oil crisis on the failure to dispossess Alaskan Caribou by drilling for oil that may or may not be there ten years from now.

The Republican Senators are employing an interesting strategy here: list out all the reasons they've failed in leadership on this issue then claim their opponents can't use those reasons because, well, they're Democrats and everybody knows how smelly and wrong THEY are.

You say this has been just another typical day for you huh?

As of roughly 6:00 a.m. the headline on MSNBC.COM reads Spasm of violence jolts Baghdad

I'm not sure this is the proper use of the word "spasm." Via Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: spasm
Pronunciation: 'spa-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English spasme, from Middle French, from Latin spasmus, from Greek spasmos, from span to draw, pull
1 : an involuntary and abnormal muscular contraction
2 : a sudden violent and temporary effort or emotion

There's nothing temporary, abnormal or sudden about violence in Iraq. If the media weren't stricken with institutional ADD they might realize that fact.

Don't shove me Harv. I'm tired of being shoved.

Pink sings to the Prez about "hard work."

Via Americablog

Good news everyone!

Read further only if you're a fan of Star Trek. Not that namby-pamby Next Generation stuff or that souless dreck that is Voyager or Enterprise but Star f-ing Trek. Tough as nails man's men who were somewhat in shape, leggy yeoman's in mini-skirts, hamfisted political symbolism obvious to even a five year old child, props that were made quite literally out of salt shakers lying around the commissary and a "Prime Directive" of non-interference that got tossed out every single episode in lieu of a weird sort of outer space gunboat diplomacy.

And green chicks. Lots and lots of green chicks.

http://www.canmag.com/news/4/3/3635

Golden ticket for what you ask? JJ Abrams has been picked up to helm the 11th feature installment for Star Trek!

JJ Abrams to Direct Star TrekAccording to Variety, Paramount has picked up Mission: Impossible III director J.J. Abrams to produce and direct the 11th Star Trek feature with hopes of getting the Enterprise back out of the docking station by 2008.

...

The story will be penned by Abrams and MI3 scribes Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. After conflicting rumors that mentioned a return to Starfleet Academy with new characters, it has now been confirmed that the story will center on the early days of seminal Star Trek characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer space mission.

What this most likely means is we will be able to see Captain Kirk pass the infamous Kobayashi Maru, a test that stumped every cadet before and after James T. Kirk's go with the program.

Best news of all: the guys that ruined Trek on television Brian Bragga and Rick Berman are nowhere near this project.

Woohoo!

Hey you wouldn't hit a guy with glasses on, would you? Huh?

Atrios points us towards Joe Lieberman's pathetic "Can't we just agree to disagree?" ad he just started running in Connecticut. Lieberman seems to think he can get out of his slobbering support for the Iraq boondoggle, not to mention the lips on the posterior position he's assumed towards The Worst President in Historytm, with a simple shrug and a smile.

"I already know that some of you feel passionately against my position in Iraq. I respect your views, and while we probably won't change each others' minds, I hope we can still have a dialogue and find common ground on all the issues where we do agree," Lieberman says in the TV spot.

Let me see if I can put this in terms Joe might understand...

"I already know that some of you feel passionately against my position requiring crying babies be fed to rabid Dobermans. I respect your views, and while we probably won't change each others' minds, I hope we can still have a dialogue and find common ground on all the issues where we do agree," Lieberman says in the TV spot.

We aren't talking tax policy here, Joe. The war in Iraq is the most serious issue facing this country in thirty years and you're on the wrong side of it.

Schmuck.

What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.

This report by the Oxford Research Group on implications of an attack on Iran is sobering.

Although US or Israeli attacks would severely damage Iranian nuclear and missile programmes, Iran would have many methods of responding in the months and years that followed. These would include disruption of Gulf oil production and exports, in spite of US attempts at pre-emption, systematic support for insurgents in Iraq, and encouragement to associates in Southern Lebanon to stage attacks on Israel. There would be considerable national unity in Iran in the face of military action by the United States or Israel, including a revitalised Revolutionary Guard.

One key response from Iran would be a determination to reconstruct a nuclear programme and develop it rapidly into a nuclear weapons capability, with this accompanied by withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This would require further attacks. A military operation against Iran would not, therefore, be a short-term matter but would set in motion a complex and long-lasting confrontation. It follows that military action should be firmly ruled out and alternative strategies developed.

Although I find that kind of forward thinking tedius. Why reason out the possibilities that would arise from an attack on Iran when we have Bush's gut to make the decision. You know the gut I'm talking about. The same gut that told him forty-plus years of being an alcoholic, cocaine-addicted layabout would be a good thing.

(NOTE: I was going to use the "Cats and Dogs sleeping together" quote but couldn't find a good pick of Bill talking to the mayor.)

Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk down middle, sooner or later, get squished.

I would hope that Democratic leaders would take Matt Stoller's advice...

The admission that progressives are winning influence within the party is something I've noticed since my four years in politics. The party has been moving away from the DLC model of triangulation, and towards the politics of contrast. This is natural for an opposition party, but it also means that not listening to the progressive base could cause an increasing number of problems for centrists Democrats.

...to heart but I won't hold my breath.

Stoller is commenting on a piece by Ben Smith claiming Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination (tons of money) and has a "50-50 chance" of actually winning the White House. Amazingly he doesn't say a thing about this bombshell.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that despite Hillary's money she doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the Democratic nomination and, were she to beat those odds she would be squashed like a grape in the highway in the general election.

Centrists and DLC types have consistently underestimated the strong sentiment against the Iraq war among the Democratic base. They have continued to try and play the middle by taking a powder on confronting the President both pre-war and, even more importantly in my view, after the invasion as the country sank into a bloody civil war. More than anything the Democratic party nominee for President in 2008 cannot be a pro-Iraq war candidate. The base simply won't have it.

But were she to beat the odds and slap the base down by winning the nomination her candidacy would be DOA. The political strategy she's been operating under seems to be an assumption that her base is in the bag (hardly) so she can afford to take "centrist*" positions early on in order to attract undecideds in the general election. Conventional wisdom has held that undecideds are the ones that actually decide elections.

George W. Bush has proven that this particular bit of conventional wisdom is wrong. Voters have become increasingly apathetic over the last several years with the importance of undecided voters diminishing as fewer and fewer actually go to the polls. The important thing to winning an election now is getting out your base on election day.

Short of a very public mea culpa and a loud denunciation of the war in Iraq and Bush's handling of same there's no way the Democratic base would turn out vote for Hillary and she would lose the election handily.

(* With over half the country now opposed to the Iraq war I'm not even sure you could say that a position supporting the President's handling of same could be deemed "centrist.")

I came over for a snoop, uh, a scoop of sugar. I hope I'm not disturbing you.

This column in yesterday's Oregonian pretty much made my head explode.

School bus drivers being trained to watch for terrorism signs

4/18/2006, 12:00 a.m. PT
The Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — School bus drivers and transportation officials across the state are being trained to spot possible terrorists and other signs of danger.

The training, given to more than 1,000 Oregonians so far, is part of the national School Bus Watch program, which teaches drivers to identify, evaluate and report suspicious activities around school buses and along bus routes.

Bus drivers are taught to look for little signals that something could be awry: For example, a man at a bus stop wearing a long trench coat on a hot summer day; a person photographing students boarding or departing; a person videotaping school buses from a freeway overpass or sketching the layout of school buildings.

The online version of the article appears to be annotated with much of the money quotes that appeared in the print version conspicously absent. The fact that the program is part of a $50 million dollar Department of Homeland Security grant is missing from the portion I linked.

$50 million dollars that could have gone to mounting geiger-counters on every crane at every port in the U.S. but instead went to training school bus drivers in the hinterland to spot junior-jihadists who sneak onto their buses.

You'd be surprised to know that thus far the program hasn't turned up any terrorist plots but I can just imagine the interview with the first bus driver that breaks a al-qaeda cell: "He was a kid I'd never seen ride the bus before, see. I could just tell he was up to something and not just because he was six feet tall with a full-on beard."

At one point the print version of the article mentions some of the how-to-spot-an-evildoer-training was conducted for average citizens in Medford. Medford. The number one target on Bin Laden's operation map, I'm sure.

Get over you bad selves, Medford. Nobody, least of all the enemies of the United States, care about you.

This is another telling graf:

Tom Slavin, a veteran school bus driver for Portland Public Schools who is also certified to train bus drivers, said the program teaches drivers to be observers, not law enforcement officers. Slavin said all drivers volunteering for the training program must go through an extensive criminal background check but are not required to sign a loyalty oath.

No loyalty oath? That is SO pre-9/11. Loyalty oaths are all the rage these days.

What the heck would they swear loyalty to? Good driving? Bus safety? Not throttling the noisy little brats?

I'm actually am fairly close to someone that's been through this training for bus drivers. One of the things they're taught is that if they suspect someone of preparing to do something nefarious to a bus they should radio in a secret code and continue business as usual until law enforcement determines what to do. In other words: if you suspect someone has a bomb on the bus keep picking up students in case they suspect you're on to them and set off the bomb.

Only the Bush administration could come up with something that asinine.